In that case, all capitalist states are authoritarian in my opinion, and all socialist states are not, both past and present, assuming we are acknowledging that the average citizen is a worker. Ideally you’d have an objective marker for what level of agency is necessary to consider something authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian, but in the absence of that I think it’s most important to identify which class is the ruling class, capitalists or workers.
I think that is a defensible position. I’d likely disagree on some nations and agree with others.
But overall yeah that’s the general idea. Truly socialists states would certainly not be authoritarian. Where would you place a state like Norway with it’s sovereign wealth fund?
Clearly some profits have been socialized and they do have robust safety nets/social programs, but they are undeniably still capitalist.
If we keep your definition, I’d say Norway is both authoritarian and imperialist. The social safety nets are generous, but come from expropriating wealth from the global south. This is the way that Norway both maintains relatively good safety nets while also maintaining incredibly wealthy capitalists, through exporting the bulk of the class conflict to the countries dominated by Norway’s finance capital.
Fron my understanding the bulk of their sovereign wealth fund comes from socializing the profits of resource extraction within Norway. Minerals and fossil fuels primarily, not corporate taxes. Although those exist.
Taking a global view to the issue is not something I thought about. Admittedly I was taking a view country by country that focused on how the state is impacting the individual citizens within their borders.
I’ll have to think more on this one. Evaluating whether or not a country is authoritarian towards its own people is useful for looking for places to migrate to or systems to replicate (at least in the short term), but it doesn’t consider the greater suffering caused by those systems outside of borders.
No problem! This analysis of imperialism is the biggest distinction between Marxists and social democrats. Lenin played an enormously valuable role in identifying this process before the modern welfare state, and the concentration of capital accelerated this export of exploitation. Italian philosopher Domenico Losurdo talked about “Herrenvolk Democracy,” how the in-group recieved the bulk of progressive change at the same time the out-group received brutal exploitation in similar degrees.
In that case, all capitalist states are authoritarian in my opinion, and all socialist states are not, both past and present, assuming we are acknowledging that the average citizen is a worker. Ideally you’d have an objective marker for what level of agency is necessary to consider something authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian, but in the absence of that I think it’s most important to identify which class is the ruling class, capitalists or workers.
I think that is a defensible position. I’d likely disagree on some nations and agree with others.
But overall yeah that’s the general idea. Truly socialists states would certainly not be authoritarian. Where would you place a state like Norway with it’s sovereign wealth fund?
Clearly some profits have been socialized and they do have robust safety nets/social programs, but they are undeniably still capitalist.
If we keep your definition, I’d say Norway is both authoritarian and imperialist. The social safety nets are generous, but come from expropriating wealth from the global south. This is the way that Norway both maintains relatively good safety nets while also maintaining incredibly wealthy capitalists, through exporting the bulk of the class conflict to the countries dominated by Norway’s finance capital.
Fron my understanding the bulk of their sovereign wealth fund comes from socializing the profits of resource extraction within Norway. Minerals and fossil fuels primarily, not corporate taxes. Although those exist.
Taking a global view to the issue is not something I thought about. Admittedly I was taking a view country by country that focused on how the state is impacting the individual citizens within their borders.
I’ll have to think more on this one. Evaluating whether or not a country is authoritarian towards its own people is useful for looking for places to migrate to or systems to replicate (at least in the short term), but it doesn’t consider the greater suffering caused by those systems outside of borders.
All very good points from you
No problem! This analysis of imperialism is the biggest distinction between Marxists and social democrats. Lenin played an enormously valuable role in identifying this process before the modern welfare state, and the concentration of capital accelerated this export of exploitation. Italian philosopher Domenico Losurdo talked about “Herrenvolk Democracy,” how the in-group recieved the bulk of progressive change at the same time the out-group received brutal exploitation in similar degrees.